P,A=S Sheet Metal i·,orkers' International Association
 TO
 DISPC'E: and

STATM= it .is the claim of the Organization that:
 OF
 CUMIe 1. The alesapeake and Ohio Railway Copany violated the
 controlling agresrent of Septefer 25, 1964, as amended
 by the agreement of December 4, 1978 when:
 (a) The Carrier improperly contracted out the work of construction
 of buildings, office and shop and running and testing air lines,
 installing new shelving for store room at the new Car Yard
 at Newport News, Virginia on Decker 21, 1982 (actual con
 struction began on IMarch 16, 1983) aril was completed on April
 6, 1984, which was in violation of Article 2 of the agreement.
 (h) The Carrier did not give the employes any advance notice in
 violation of Article 2, section 2 of the agreemnt.
 (e) That, accordingly, the Claimants be =q3--mated in an amunt
 equal to the ten percent (10% as provided for by the agreereat
 for Carrier's violation of the advance notice requiramants of
 Section 2, Article 2 of the agrewrent).
 (d) That, accordingly, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company
 be ordered to sensate the following Sheet metal 'Akyrkers the
 rate of pay at the time of the violation for the sazmr amount
 of hours as the price paid to the Tidewater Construction Company,
 Norfolk, Virginia for this work.
 D. L. Criswell
 E. White, Jr.
 J. R. Kiser
 E. F. Craddock, ck

 OPINION -his dispute arises from the Carrier's decision to contract
 or
 BOARD: out the construction of neco office and shop buildings at the
 Carrier's facilities in Newport News, Virginia. The Carrier awarded a contract
 to the Tidewater Construction Cotpany, Norfolk, Virginia, to design arid construct
 new hopper car facilities at that location. Design work began on Dece-roer 21, 1982,
                                          AWARD NO. ~

                                          CASE NO,

                              2 __


        actual construction began on .larch 16, 1983 and was ccmpleted April 6, 1984. The Carrier states that the labor cost for sheet metal work involved in the project eras $10,325 and the cost for materials was $14,130.

        On Tanua-ry 23, 1984 the Organization filed a claim protesting the use of the contractor's (or its subcontractor's) scmloyes to do its maiCoers' work at the Newport- News site. T~e Carrier replied to the claim on August 16, 1984, stating that the contract had been executed on a "tu_rnkey", basis, with the contractor being responsible for all the work involved. P1ork done in "tu_--nkey" situations, and especially in the construction oz" new buildings, does not belong exclusively to the Carrier's sheet metal workers, according to the Carrier. The Carrier also stated that the sheet retal work had to be coordinated with. other facets of the project, and the deadlines could not have been mt with the skills, personnel and equipment available on the property.

          in its submission the Carrier also refers to another claim from Local 499

        of the Organization dated January 11, 1984, which apparently presents the

        same objection to u_e construction project. The Carrier denied this claim on

        March 14, 1984 on the grounds that this was a "tuxzAey" contract. The Organization

        does not refer to this correspondence in its submission before this Board, but

        it appears that both letters refer to the sum= problem. The Organization filet -his claim before the Board on January 23, 1985.


          n^4 threshold issue in this case is whether the Board has jurisdiction to


        hear this claim, because the 0. r:vanization failed to zest a conference over -

        the dispute on the n_%pe-·-ty. As support for this argiment the Carrier relies

        t.Ton Section 2, Second of the Railway Labor Act, which provides in relevant part,


            second. A11 disputes between a carrier or carriers and its or their aVloyes shall be considered, and, if possible, decided, with all expedition., in conference between representatives designated and authflrized so to confer, respectively, by the carrier or carriers

'`~° and by the e=rployes thereof interested in the dispute.
                                            see s-2o'

                              AWARD N0. U 7

                              CASE N0, 7 863

                              3


        This Hoard has interpreted this section to mean that in order for the Board to emrt its jurisdiction over a dispute, the parties first must engage in face to face negotiations concerning the claim (Special Board of Adjusttrnnt No. 570, Award No. 129) . In reaching this conclusion the Board stated that the language of the second section in itself establishes that the conference is a condition precedent to review of a dispute by the Adjustaent Board. Xs support for this interpretation the Board also has relied upon Section 2, Sixth of the Act, which reads in relevant part,


            Sixth. In case of a dispute between a carrier or carriers and its or their employees, arising out of grievances or out of the interpretation of application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules or working conditions, it shall be the duty of the designated representative or representatives of such carrier or carriers and of such errployees, within ten days after the receipt of notice of a desire on the part of either party to confer in respect to such dispute, to specify a time and place at which such conference shall be held: Provided, (1) That the place so specified sha11 be situated upon the line of the carrier involved or as

_ otherwise mutually agreed upon.: and (2) that the time so specified shall
        allow the designated conferees reasonable opportunity to reach such place

        of conference, but shall not exceed twenty days from the receipt of such

        notice: Ana rovided further, That nothing in this Act shall be construed

        to super a the pmv~.sions of any agrearnt (as to conferences) then in

        effect betwen the parties.

        The Carrier did not explicitly rely on this section in its submission regarding

        this claim. Nevertheless, this Board concurs with the earlier awards which

        hold that this language provides added evidenoe that Congress intended to

        require a face to face conference between the parties. By requiring the parties

        to establish a "time and place" for the conference, Congress clarified that

        only a meting in person., rather than a simple exchange of correspondence, as

        occurred in this case, would fulfill the require~:ts of the second section.

        in Third Division Award No. 10675, Referee R. J. Ables spelled out a

        sound reason for the requiretpnt of a direct conference between the parties,

            T1~#-- Railway Labor Act is bottd on the principle that direct personal

'~-' confrontation of representatives of both sides is the best way to get
            agreemnt. This is the essence of collective bargaining and of settling

            disputes.

S64 5,20 AWARD N0, CASE N0.

 In Award No. 129, this Special Board addressed the argument that in many cases the personal conference would be a futile exercise, given the exchange of correspondence between the parties. That decision notes that even if there is no prospect of settlement, a conference gives each party the opportunity to clarify the issues, evidence and arguments of the other party. This is often true, and this Board would add that no matter how adamant the parties may seem in their correspondence, there is nothing like a face to face meeting to soften the parties' positions and make a settlement more likely.
 In its argument before the Board over this claim, the Organization has
 argued that the conference is not obligatory, and that its General Chairman
 may decide whether to request one. The language of Section 2, sixth, states
 that when one party requests a conference, the other party must set a reasonable
 time and place. This Board has held that this language in no way implies that
 the claiming party has the option of requesting or not requesting a conference.
 (S.B.A. No. 570, Award No. 129). Although either party may ask for a conference,
 if the non-claiming party fails to do so, the claiming party must request a
 conference before a claim can be advanced to the Board. In the Board's view
 this is a sound interpretation of the language of section 2, sixth.
 This language applies generally. In the instant case, however, there is a supporting contractual obligation for the parties to hold a conference before proceeding to the Board, as the Carrier has pointed out in its submission. Article VI, Section g of the September 25, 196L agreement between the parties, states in relevant part:

      "Any dispute arising under Article I, Employe Protection, and Article II, Subcontracting, of this agreement, not settled in direct negotiations, may be submitted to the Board by either party, by notice to the other party and to the Board:` (Emphasis added).

                                          A aed No.

                                          Case No. 83


                          5


As the Board stated in Award No. 129, the tern "negotiations" normally means something other than correspondence, within the history of American labor relations. And in any case, "direct" negotiations implies a personal meeting and discussion between the parties. Therefore, the contract also requires a face to face conference between the parties before advancing a claim to the Board. Claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, in the absence of any indication that a conferee&e on the property was held or requested by the claiming party.

                      AS2ARD


Claim dismissed.

 This Board, after consideration of the dispute identified above, hereby orders that sr. Award favorable to Claimant not be made.

 Adopted at Chicago, Illinois on

          _ i.zLc r'._ ,-~·

                                      _ _ m